|
|
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | | |
| | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor Pebble Bed Reactor], safer, simpler and more efficient type of fission reactor. At least one prototype currently operating. | | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor Pebble Bed Reactor], safer, simpler and more efficient type of fission reactor. At least one prototype currently operating. |
| − |
| |
| − | == Disadvantages ==
| |
| − | Although nuclear power has a lot of advantages, we need to keep in mind that Seastead will have to be near existing countries, at least in the beginning. Countries probably don't mind a cruise ship kind of operation in their vincinity, but both governments and the public will mind a vessel carrying "scary stuff" and take appropriate action. Although nuclear options may be very cheap and eco-friendly, it is probably better suited for spaceships instead of humble seasteads.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There are many more ways to get energy, and Seastead is an extremely good place to experiment with alternative energy sources like [[Growing algae|algae]] since "land" can be made easy. To get things going, focussing on technology that is easy to obtain and to use is probably the best and only way to go.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -I don´t think anyone is seriously suggesting that we fire up a nuclear reactor in the San Fransisco Bay or close to any other countries. I strongly think it´s a realistic alternative for full size seasteads on the high seas however. After all, there are nuclear powerplants all over the world today, even in large vessels. It´s a proven technology that compares favorably against pretty much anything else. The biggest obstacle is political, and seeing as the whole point of seasteading is to get rid of political obstacles I´d say nuclear power fits like a glove.
| |
| − | By the way this kind of discussion probably belongs on the talk page.
| |
| − | -vtoldude
| |
Revision as of 10:35, 9 May 2008
